It doesn’t seem to square with the voter-approved rules contained within Amendment 41, which strictly limit members of government from accepting valuable gifts. And we’re concerned the trip’s financing may have directly violated the law, even though the poorly written amendment itself provides an enormous loophole.

Further, though the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission pre-approved Ritter’s request to take the trip sponsored by the Allied Jewish Federation, the panel did so based on incomplete information.

It would have been better and more transparent had Ritter told the ethics panel who would be accompanying him on the trip. His office didn’t return messages Monday, so we don’t understand why this wasn’t done.

As Colorado Common Cause’s Jenny Flanagan notes, the panel’s concerns are rooted in the very spirit of Amendment 41, which is to limit the “pay to play” access of big-money special interests in our government.

Consider: In Colorado, it is against the law for a government official to accept a gift greater than $50. What’s more, lobbyists aren’t allowed to give government officials any gifts — they can’t even pick up the tab for a cup of coffee.

Yet Gov. Ritter, his wife and several members of his office were treated to the week-long trip last month with several individuals representing companies and interests in Colorado that routinely lobby lawmakers and state officials, according to The Denver Post’s Jessica Fender.

The trip, according to the ethics panel, is OK under Amendment 41 because the Allied Jewish Federation receives less than 5 percent of its funding from for-profit groups.

The law states that it is permissible for nonprofits to fund government participation to “a convention, fact-finding mission or trip” if the government official or officials “deliver a speech, make a presentation, participate on a panel, or represent the state or local government.”

That’s a back door in the law that special interests could exploit.

Ritter’s office correctly filed a request with the ethics commission to determine whether the trip met that exemption, flawed as it may be. The panel issued an opinion stating that, based on the information it was given, the trip did fit the definition.

However, the panel also noted that its members were concerned that they didn’t have the list of private attendees. Without such information, the panel was unable to determine whether “these invitations could be improper, and/or create an appearance of impropriety if these individuals are seeking direct official action by the Governor or the other members of the state delegation.”

The list of attendees that Ritter could have sent the ethics panel, once they were known, included top executives from Braddock Financial Corp., the Hogan Lovells law firm, North American Title and others.

To tag along, the guests donated a tax-deductible gift of $1,500 to the Allied Jewish Federation.

Clearly, this trip wasn’t as transparent as it could have been, and it is troubling how elastic Amendment 41’s exemptions are.